NEW YORK (AFP) â British pop superstar Elton John stirred controversy in a magazine interview Friday when he claimed that Jesus Christ was "gay." "I think Jesus was a compassionate, super-intelligent gay man who understood human problems," John said in an interview posted on the website of US celebrity news magazine Parade. "On the cross, he forgave the people who crucified him. Jesus wanted us to be loving and forgiving. I don't know what makes people so cruel. Try being a gay woman in the Middle East -- you're as good as dead," said John, who is gay. The Catholic League, the largest US Catholic rights group, condemned the comments. "Jesus was certainly compassionate, but to say he was 'super-intelligent' is to compare the son of God to a successful game-show contestant," league president Bill Donohue said in a statement. "More seriously, to call Jesus a homosexual is to label him a sexual deviant. But what else would we expect from a man who previously said, 'From my point of view, I would ban religion completely'?"
ODD ... mark my words. Mocking God and that level of pride comes before destruction. It is a guarantee of sowing and reaping. Watch for some destructive reaping in Elton Johns flesh forthwith. These things are an easy call and as reliable as gravity.
God is good and desires life for people. When they sow deadly things that can destroy others ... their own judgment falls on themselves ... much a self correcting created order thing ... Hey ... if even a huge Auto manufacturer promotes such a deadly lifestyle openly ... I will recommend shorting it ... because that malevolent error and pride leads to destruction. Wait ... Ford did that already ... tankyou very much.
dont know about jesus but the guy that wrote many of the books of the bible. thats another story: http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/2004/04/Was-The-Apostle-Paul-Gay.aspx Was the Apostle Paul Gay? What accounts for Paul's self-judging rhetoric, his negative feeling toward his own body? An Episcopal bishop mulls the issues. Nothing about Paul was moderate. He was tightly drawn, passionately emotional, filled with enormous feelings of self-negativity, seeking to deal with those feelings in the timehonored way of external controls, unflagging religious zeal, and rigid discipline. He could not, however, master the passions that consumed him. What were these passions? There is no doubt in my mind that they were sexual in nature, but what kind of sexual passions were they? Searching once again through the writings of Paul, some conclusions begin to emerge that startle and surprise the reader. Paul's passions seemed to be incapable of being relieved. Why was that? Paul himself had written that if one "could not exercise self-control" that person should marry. "For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion" (1 Cor. 7:9). But we have no evidence from any source that Paul ever married. Indeed, he exhorts widows and the unmarried to "remain single as I do" (1 Cor. 7:8). A primary purpose of sexual activity in marriage, according to Paul, was to keep Satan from tempting people "through lack of self-control" (1 Cor. 7:5). Why, when Paul seemed to be so consumed with a passion he could not control, would he not take his own advice and alleviate that passion in marriage? He did write that marriage was an acceptable, if not ideal, way of life. Still, however, marriage never seemed to loom for him as a possibility. Paul has been perceived as basically negative toward women. He did write that "it is well for a man not to touch a woman" (1 Cor. 7:1). The passion that burned so deeply in Paul did not seem to be related to the desire for union with a woman. Why would that desire create such negativity in Paul, anyway? Marriage, married love, and married sexual desire were not thought to be evil or loathsome. Paul's sexual passions do not fit comfortably into this explanatory pattern. But what does? Obviously there is no way to know for certain the cause of Paul's anxiety prior to that moment of final revelation
Written by "Bishop" John Shelby Spong, what a hoot ! This would be equivilant to Jerry Falwell writing an article "Is homosexual behaviour a choice ?" Why Spong still calls himself a "bishop" after becoming a heretic can only be for selling books to the unsuspecting.